[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3509-H3517]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4775, OZONE STANDARDS
IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES.
89, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT A CARBON TAX WOULD BE
DETRIMENTAL TO THE UNITED STATES ECONOMY; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H. CON. RES. 112, EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS
OPPOSING THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSED $10 TAX ON EVERY BARREL OF OIL
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 767 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 767
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4775) to facilitate efficient State
implementation of ground-level ozone standards, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall
be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
All points of order against the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House any concurrent resolution
specified in section 3 of this resolution. All points of
order against consideration of each such concurrent
resolution are waived. Each such concurrent resolution shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in each such concurrent resolution are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on each such
concurrent resolution and preamble to adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
Sec. 3. The concurrent resolutions referred to in section
2 of this resolution are as follows:
(1) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) expressing
the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental
to the United States economy.
(2) The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 112) expressing
the sense of Congress opposing the President's proposed $10
tax on every barrel of oil.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 767 provides a structured
rule for the consideration of three bills. You heard the reading Clerk
read them, but I will read them again: H.R. 4775, Ozone Standards
Implementation Act; H. Con. Res. 89, Expressing the Sense of Congress
that a Carbon Tax would be Detrimental to the United States Economy;
and, H. Con. Res. 112, Expressing the Sense of Congress Opposing the
President's Proposed $10 Tax on Every Barrel of Oil.
It is a little unusual that we put three different bills into a
single rule, but today has been a bit of an unusual day. It has been a
bit of an unusual day.
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to you, standing not 3 feet from where
you were just 30 minutes ago was the leader of a democracy of 1.3
billion people. That is 1.3 billion people. In the midst of his
remarks, he commented on the reputation of the United States Congress,
known far and wide around the globe. He commented on the comity--that
is with an i-t-y, not an e-d-y--that we have been known for. And I hope
this rule will be no exception, Mr. Speaker.
We are not going to agree on all the underlying bills, all the
underlying policy, but what we can agree on is that this Congress needs
to have its voice heard.
If we approve this rule today--and I recommend to all of my
colleagues that we do approve this rule today--we will be able to get
to the underlying debate. And in the underlying debate, Mr. Speaker, we
have two senses of Congress and a piece of legislation--a piece of
legislation for which amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee
to say that we have ideas as Members of this body about how we can
improve the underlying bill.
One of them came from my friend from Colorado. I don't particularly
support the idea that he is pushing, but I support his right to have
the idea heard on the floor of the House. This rule makes the Polis
amendment in order, along with every other non-duplicative amendment
submitted. I add non-duplicative because virtually the same amendment
was submitted by two different Members and we decided to debate it once
instead of twice, as is customary.
We are going to disagree, but we are going to have the debate over
those disagreements. And my great hope is that the work product we
produce will be a stronger work product because we have had an
opportunity to discuss it here on the floor. My great hope is that,
after we have had a chance to perfect that work product, we will send
it on to the Senate with a big bipartisan vote from both parties.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to talk about taxes as if they don't come
from someone. When we have an academic conversation about tax policy,
what is the saying? Don't tax him, don't tax me, tax the man behind
that tree.
I have heard folks say: You are always trying to put the tax burden
on somebody else.
What the President proposed was $10 a barrel on every barrel of oil
consumed in America. Now, historically, we have had some low oil prices
of late. That $10 a barrel tax would have amounted to almost a 50
percent increase in the cost of a barrel of oil. Today it is going to
be closer to a 20 percent increase in the cost of a barrel of oil.
This tax is implemented in the name of what, Mr. Speaker?
It is in the name of improving our failing infrastructure because we
do need to improve our failing infrastructure. We do have to have a
conversation about user fees in this country and how it is we are going
to build the best logistical system the world has ever known. But that
is not what this tax would do.
This is a tax that is part of what has been a long campaign against
the consumption of any fossil fuels whatsoever. My great frustration,
Mr. Speaker, is that if your goal is to reduce the consumption of
fossil fuels, we have a lot of ways we can do that. We have a lot of
very reasonable ways we can do that. And this proposal makes no effort
to try to find the most efficient way to make that happen. It is a
blanket $10 a barrel tax across the board.
If you are using that barrel of oil to generate space-age plastics,
Mr. Speaker, and you are going to use those
[[Page H3510]]
space-age plastics to build the most efficient photovoltaic cell array
the world has ever known, such as is going on in my district, there is
no special dispensation for you.
In the name of trying to create a better environment, we will tax the
very inputs that we are encouraging folks to use in order to create a
better environment. It doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker. Folks use it as
a bumper sticker line. It is a campaign year.
That uncertainty has an impact on job creation. That uncertainty has
an impact on where these funds around the globe go toward trying to
create a better environment for us all--where those funds land, where
those jobs are created.
Today this House takes a stand. Today this House makes it clear, even
in an election year, even in the uncertainty of a political season,
even in this time of conflict on policy, that we can provide some
certainty out there for not just the American business community, but
the international business community.
There is one thing I think that we can all agree on, Mr. Speaker, and
that is that America has the most productive workforce the world has
ever known. If given a level playing field, there is not a single
opportunity that we cannot succeed in. If we commit ourselves to it, we
can succeed.
Lower-paying jobs, cheaper finger jobs are always going to go
overseas, but the higher-paying jobs, the higher-skilled jobs, the
energy-intensive jobs, those jobs can come here.
We have an extraordinary disadvantage in this country in that we have
the single worst Tax Code in the world. The single worst. If you want
to create a business, if you want to grow jobs, don't come to America
is the tag line that the Tax Code suggests. No one punishes
productivity more than we do in America. It is nonsense. We can
absolutely fix it. The Speaker and our Ways and Means Committee
chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), are working incredibly
hard to make that happen.
If we go from worst to first in terms of a competitive job code, we
bring more jobs to this country. But number two, we have an advantage
that no one else does, in that we have gone from being worried during
the Carter administration that we would exhaust all of our energy
reserves to having the largest energy reserves this Nation has ever
known.
If you need to produce a product that requires high energy inputs, I
challenge you to find a better location than the United States of
America. Those jobs are coming here. We have an advantage for job
creators here. And what the President would do in his budget is to give
that advantage away. And for what? Not because of a coherent energy
policy designed to make the world a better place, make the environment
a better environment, and the health of American citizens better, but
in the name of pursuing an agenda of no fossil fuels--nowhere, nohow.
I am glad we are down here having this conversation today, Mr.
Speaker. It is one that needs to be had. It is one that has been a long
time coming. But we have an opportunity today to speak with one voice
in this body. I hope we will speak with one voice in supporting this
rule and speak with one voice in supporting the three underlying
resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be here today discussing one of these
resolutions because it really means something when Members of Congress
see fit--and I am talking about the Scalise resolution, H. Con. Res.
89, to say they are against a particular proposal.
Quite honestly, this is the first sign of momentum for a carbon tax
cut. And you will hear me referring to it as a ``carbon tax cut''
because that is essentially what it is. It is using carbon tax revenues
to cut taxes for the American people, for American businesses.
{time} 1300
You don't see these kinds of resolutions if a concept and an idea
don't have momentum.
For instance, my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) has long been
a champion of a proposal to create a sales tax here in our country, a
national sales tax of 19, 20 percent, and he is welcome to talk about
it on his own time.
But I think the gentleman will acknowledge, much to his frustration,
that that idea does not seem to be advancing. Now, were it advancing,
you might very well see this kind of resolution saying it is not a good
idea.
There are other Republicans who have ideas to raise the tax rates on
low-income Americans or Americans that are so low-income they might not
even be paying a Federal income tax yet. Again, those ideas don't
generally have momentum, so you don't see this kind of resolution
coming forward to try to stop it.
This is the first real chance that Congress has had to vote, in many
ways, on the merits of a carbon tax cut and, frankly, I think that this
discussion moves us forward, because I fully expect there will be
bipartisan opposition to this resolution which opposes, presumably, any
and all carbon tax cuts, because what you see is, the oil and gas lobby
or, I should say, some segments of the oil and gas lobby because, quite
frankly, many international oil and gas industry players actually
support a carbon tax cut as a way of their, therefore, getting around
this kind of regulatory uncertainty that they see, like, in fact, the
ozone rules itself. They see it better to simply establish a price for
carbon.
But let's say, of course, there are also those in the oil and gas
industry who oppose this carbon tax cut. They are trying to run a
strategy to try to lock people down, where, yes, maybe, 10, 5, 12
Republicans will vote for this, whatever it is; but they want to be
able to go back and remind Republicans who vote for this now that, in
the future, when we are actually moving forward with the carbon tax cut
proposal, that they were already on the Record in a particular way.
That means they are worried, frankly. That is what that means in
``inside the Beltway speak'' and ``Washington speak.''
What does that mean? It means I am excited because I ran for
Congress, in part, to pass a carbon tax cut.
Let me quote some of the many prominent conservatives that have
caused this resolution to come forward in many ways because of the
great momentum that a carbon tax cut has.
Former Secretary of State George Shultz, Secretary of State under
Ronald Reagan, said: ``A carbon tax, starting small and escalating to a
significant level on a legislated schedule, would do the trick. I would
make it revenue-neutral, returning all net funds generated to
taxpayers.''
That is Former Secretary of State George Shultz.
Jerry Taylor, of the Niskanen Center, formerly of the Cato Institute,
said: ``A carbon tax at the levels presently discussed in Washington
would not unduly burden the economy, and that's particularly true once
we consider the non-climate environmental benefits that would follow
from the tax as well as the benefits of any offsetting tax cuts.''
So in a moment you will hear me talk about the many benefits of this
carbon tax cut concept. But what Jerry Taylor at the Niskanen Center
has rightfully latched onto is the economic stimulus that can actually
be generated by lowering taxes on American businesses, on job creators,
on middle-income families as an offset from the carbon tax cut.
Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute says: ``The obvious lesson from
economics is to increase fossil fuel prices enough through taxation to
account for these effects.''
My good friend, and a personal mentor of mine, Dr. Arthur Laffer,
former Economic Adviser under President Reagan, said: ``When you add
the national security concerns, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels
becomes a no-brainer.'' And he has spoken out in support of, again, a
carbon tax cut.
Greg Mankiw, the former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
to George Bush, said: ``I will tell the American people that a higher
tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-
handed CAFE regulations,'' and ``I will advocate a carbon tax as the
best way to control global warming.''
So, I mean, what you have is many conservatives, free market
conservatives lining up to say yes, let's cut
[[Page H3511]]
taxes and let's do it by passing a carbon tax cut.
I have a letter, Mr. Speaker, that I will include in the Record,
signed by Niskanen Center, Republican, American Enterprise Institute, R
Street Institute, Evangelical Environmental Network in opposition to
this resolution by Representative Scalise.
In fact, in part, this letter says, which will be available in the
Record: ``The least burdensome, most straightforward, and most market-
friendly means of addressing climate change is to price the risks
imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a tax.''
June 7, 2016.
Dear Representative, Later this week Congress will take up
a resolution sponsored by Congressman Scalise (R-LA1) that
expresses the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be
detrimental to the economy of the United States. We are
concerned that this resolution offers a limited perspective
on carbon taxes and is blind to the potential benefits of
market-based climate policy. Legislation that incorporates a
carbon tax could include regulatory and tax reforms to make
the United States economy more competitive, innovative, and
robust, benefiting both present and future generations.
We recognize that a carbon tax, like any tax, will impose
economic costs. But climate change is also imposing economic
costs. This resolution falls short by recognizing the cost of
action without considering the cost of staying on our present
policy course. There are, of course, uncertainties about the
future cost of climate change and, likewise, the cost
associated with a carbon tax (much would depend on program
design and the pace and nature of technological progress).
The need for action, however, is clear. A recent survey of
economists who publish in leading peer-reviewed journals on
these matters found that 93% believe that a meaningful policy
response to climate change is warranted.
The least burdensome, most straightforward, and most
market-friendly means of addressing climate change is to
price the risks imposed by greenhouse gas emissions via a
tax. This would harness price signals, rather than
regulations, to guide market response. That is why carbon
pricing has the support of free market economists, a majority
of the global business community, and a large number of the
largest multinational private oil and gas companies in the
world (the corporate entities among the most directly
affected by climate policy).
In reaching a conclusion, this resolution neglects the fact
that the United States already has a multiplicity of carbon
taxes. They are imposed, however, via dozens of federal and
state regulations, are invisible to consumers, unevenly
imposed across industrial sectors, unnecessarily costly, and
growing in size and scope. The policy choice is not if we
should price carbon emissions, but how.
Unfortunately, this resolution also fails to differentiate
between proposals that would impose carbon taxes on top of
existing regulations (chiefly the Obama Administration's
Clean Power Plan), and proposals that would impose carbon
taxes in place of those existing regulations. Conservatives
and free market advocates should embrace the latter,
regardless of how they view climate risks.
An economy-wide carbon tax that replaces existing
regulatory interventions could reduce the cost of climate
policy and deregulate the economy. It could also provide
revenue to support pro-growth tax reform, including corporate
income or payroll tax cuts, which could dramatically reduce
overall costs on the economy. Revenues could be applied to
compensate those who suffer the most from higher energy
costs; the poor, the elderly, and individuals and families
living on fixed incomes.
Unfortunately, none of those options are presently
available because Members of Congress have neglected
opportunities to design and debate market-friendly climate
policies in legislation. Instead, they have yielded authority
in climate policy design to the Executive Branch. By
discouraging a long-overdue discussion about sensible carbon
pricing, this resolution frustrates the development of better
policy.
Sincerely,
Jerry Taylor,
President, Niskanen Center.
Bob Inglis,
Executive Director, RepublicEn.
Aparna Mathur,
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Eli Lehrer,
President, R Street Institute.
The Rev. Mitchell C. Hescox,
President, Evangelical Environmental Network.
Alan Viard,
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Mr. POLIS. Now, let's take this back to basic economics. The Supreme
Court itself said something along the lines of: power to tax is the
power to destroy. That is from an early 19th century case.
Whatever you tax, you discourage in the economy. Whatever you don't
tax, you encourage. So you have to look at what you tax. It's
important.
Let's take an example from corporations. We tax corporate profits.
Well, it turns out corporate profits are a good thing. We tax
individual income. It turns out individual income is a good thing.
As policymakers, we shouldn't seek to discourage activities that help
people earn money or help companies earn money. That is exactly what we
want people to do. That is exactly what we want companies to do on
behalf of their shareholders and their stakeholders.
So why not take something that, regardless of what with you think of
the science on climate change--and that is not central to this debate
on a carbon tax cut. So let's even start from the assumption that you
don't want to look at the science. You have turned a blind eye to it.
You are not at all concerned about climate change, or you don't think
it is manmade.
Let's look, again, at carbon usage in our economy and the negative
consequences of it: pollution, meaning air quality--not talking climate
change--air quality, increased asthma, increased cancer risk.
National security's concerns, reliant on importing it from foreign
companies or, if we are producing it domestically, utilizing a resource
that we know will return out in the very best-case scenario. It is a
perishable resource. Once you take it out of the ground, it is gone.
So if we can find a way to say, you know what? We would rather have
income. We would rather have Americans of all income levels--whether
they are earning $1 million a year, or $20,000 a year--we would rather
have them keep more of their hard-earned money. We would rather have
companies keep more of their money to re-invest in job growth here,
rather than seek elaborate tax shelters overseas, or inversions, where
they move their corporate headquarters overseas because we have one of
the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
The carbon tax cut presents us with the opportunity for pro-growth
economic policies that make America more competitive and lets Americans
keep more of their hard-earned money.
That is what excites so many free-market conservatives and centrists
about the concept of a free market, of a carbon tax cut. That is,
frankly, why this great momentum, coming from the American Enterprise
Institute, from Cato, from R Street, all of this intellectual fuel,
intellectual fuel for a carbon tax cut, that is why, sensing that, some
Republicans--in this case, Mr. Scalise and his cosponsors--have brought
forward as a response. This kind of thing only happens in Washington
when an idea has momentum.
I couldn't have been more excited when I was back home recently to
talk to several of my constituents who are strongly dedicated to a
bipartisan solution on climate change.
Former Representative Bob Inglis actually came to my district and met
with me, met with some of the leadership folks in my district about how
we can do something to act on climate from a Republican perspective.
And I am firmly of the belief that any action has to be bipartisan.
Just looking at the way our country is balanced, I mean, certainly,
if the Democrats were in a position where we had 60 seats in the
Senate, where we had a majority in the House, where we had the
President, I would certainly encourage us to move forward and implement
some kind of carbon tax cut; but, frankly, that is an unlikely
scenario.
It is more likely that a solution will require support from both
sides of the aisle, so we should be talking about what it takes to get
that kind of support. That is the discussion, the national discussion
that former Representative Bob Inglis has dedicated himself to and,
frankly, it is the fear of that kind of discussion that has led this
body to consider this resolution in opposition to a carbon tax cut
that, I am proud to say, will likely have bipartisan opposition;
meaning, there will be some Republicans, I hope, I expect, who will
stand up and say, wait a minute. I don't want to go on the
[[Page H3512]]
Record saying I am against any kind of carbon tax cut because of the
great benefit that this can provide to the American economy.
As articulated by Arthur Laffer, as articulated by R Street
Institute, we have the ability, with some of that revenue, to really
pass pro-growth tax cuts to offset the income and the revenue from the
carbon tax cut.
So the carbon tax cut can reduce the income tax for American families
of all income levels. I should point out, Democrats care that lower-
income families spend a higher percentage of their income on fuel, on
energy. And we have, in many of the bipartisan concept proposals that
are out there, tracked tax credits and tax refunds for low-income
families to make sure that anything we do is not regressive. I think
that is a given.
I think, obviously, in the same week that the Speaker of the House
put out his agenda on poverty, I am sure that he, and many others--the
last thing they would want to do is burden lower-income Americans with
any kind of additional tax. So of course we want to take care of that.
The good news is that is only a small fraction of the windfall from
the carbon tax cut. It also provides sufficient revenue to reduce
corporate tax rates currently among the highest in the world. Of all
the developed countries, a 35 percent corporate tax rate. The developed
country average is somewhere in the 18, 20 percent range last time I
checked. It is one of the reasons that corporations are moving
overseas. They are not repatriating their earnings because they don't
want to pay that American income tax.
In a global economy, you have to be competitive. It doesn't mean we
have to be the lowest. That is not the value proposition of our
country. We have the rule of law. We have a highly educated workforce,
but we have to be competitive.
So if we can find a way to reduce that corporate tax rate to 25
percent or 20 percent--I applaud the work of Dave Camp, the former Ways
and Means chair last session, who boldly proposed a 25 percent income
tax rate. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, has
proposed a 28 percent corporate income tax rate. So in that range. And
that is, by the way, without a carbon tax cut.
With a carbon tax cut you can go lower on the corporate income tax.
You could run the numbers. You could probably get down to 20 percent.
Maybe you could get down to 15 percent. It depends how you allocated
it. But that is one of the things that excites many of the strong free
market advocates of the carbon tax cut.
You could also reduce the individual tax burden for families across
all income levels, after we make darn sure that low-income families are
not in any way disproportionately hit. And in no way is this
regressive. In fact, Democrats' preference would prefer this to be
accretive for low-income families, and maybe that is something we can
come together around. Certainly something that Democrats and
Republicans care about are those who live in poverty and making sure
that they, too, see the benefits of the windfall from the carbon tax
cut.
But, of course, we are also very open--I am, and my Democratic
colleagues--to sharing the benefits of the carbon tax cut across the
entire spectrum of income earners, with a focus, we hope, on the middle
class, with a focus, we hope, on those in poverty.
But it does provide an opportunity for Republicans who come to the
table around climate, around carbon tax cut to say, you know what? Our
priorities include job creators and others which, of course, we all
care about job creators, we all about care about S Corps, we all care
about all those things.
It is simply a matter of priorities. You have to get the revenues to
run the government from somewhere. And, separately, we have the
discussion about what those appropriation levels are, how much we
spend; we have that discussion.
Then we have to, somehow, get so much in taxes. It is a question of
where it is from. And I believe it should be from things that,
regardless of what you believe on climate, we want to discourage,
rather than things that we want to encourage.
So if we can stop discouraging people from earning money and income,
stop discouraging corporations from domiciling their earnings here,
from growing, from expanding and, instead, discourage something that,
even if you throw out the science on climate, is polluting, and runs
out, and is a national security danger because it forces us to rely on
other countries, that is something that we should discourage in our
economy.
So, look, I join George Shultz, Jerry Taylor, Peter Van Doren, Dr.
Arthur Laffer, Greg Mankiw, the American Enterprise Institute, and so
many others, in saying: the time is now to have this discussion.
I applaud Representative Scalise for initiating this discussion. This
is the first sign of momentum that this bill has. And the day that this
body considers a bill condemning my friend from Georgia's national
sales tax proposal, I will actually start worrying about it. I will
actually start saying wait a minute.
I have had many discussions with him, and I have to say it does have
its merits. My issues and concerns with it have been around whether or
not we can make it progressive rather than regressive and, of course,
the potential for black market transactions when you have that level of
taxation. It's a hypothetical discussion at this point.
But the day that a resolution comes forth like H.R. 89 around the
national sales tax, I will know that that discussion has become a
serious one. And I couldn't be more proud and excited that the
discussion around a national carbon tax cut has now become a serious
one, a bipartisan one, an inevitable one, one that we will see through
with the next President of the United States into law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, with that level of agreement, I am prepared
to tell my friend I don't have any speakers remaining, and if he is
prepared to close, we will get right to the underlying bill and
exercise that enthusiasm.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other speakers, so I will be
happy to close.
I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to address some of the issues in this rule
and in this bill. This rule, which I oppose, and I also oppose all
three underlying bills, contain a number of concepts that aren't going
to move forward into law, that are put there for political reasons and,
again, very excitingly, the first real discussion of a national carbon
tax cut, because that idea has so much bipartisan momentum from the
left and the right.
{time} 1315
Many of these ideas are simply recycling old ideas, the same ideas
that we have discussed before, that they have complained about before
that if somehow they were to make it out of the Senate, the President
would veto them, particularly, obviously, one that undoes what the
President wants to do, so we are simply going through the motions on a
lot of these bills. The most notable one is truly the resolution on a
carbon tax cut because what this means is that idea has scared enough
people, presumably, who oppose it that it is moving forward in some
form and some discussion, which is exciting.
So let's start with discussing the proposed $10-per-barrel fee on
oil. Now, this is, again, kind of a reaction to something that isn't
happening. It is not going to change any current policy. There is no
$10-per-barrel fee on oil. This is simply about a Chamber saying that
they disapprove of something that Obama has said and wants to do.
We all agree our country has serious problems with transportation and
infrastructure funding. There are many different ways that we can meet
the needs to fund those. If people don't like a per-barrel fee on oil,
there are plenty of other ways to do it.
The real discussion should be about how do we fund transportation?
I am a fan of our bipartisan proposal to allow a repatriation window
for funds that corporations have income overseas which they have not
brought back to our country because they effectively face another tax
with that and a one-time window for doing that. We can create a
national infrastructure bank to fund infrastructure.
[[Page H3513]]
There are a lot of great ideas. It is clear--and this will probably
pass--the Republicans don't like a $10-per-barrel tax on oil, and that
is fine.
If you don't like it, what do you like? How do we want to fund
infrastructure?
This proposal and this concept came from the administration's 2017
budget. Frankly, there are probably a lot of things in the President's
budget that my Republican friends don't like. They could probably run a
resolution every week, they could probably run 10 resolutions every
week about things that they don't like in the President's budget, but
that is not really a productive use of this Chamber's time. That budget
didn't pass. As far as I know, I don't think that budget got a single
vote.
It wasn't put up this year because Republicans haven't even put up
any budgets for our body. They haven't offered a budget. The last time
the Republicans put budgets forward--and I believe the last budget, if
I am not mistaken, did not contain the $10-per-barrel tax on oil. That
was in the President's budget for fiscal year 2017, but the prior one
did not receive any votes from Democrats or Republicans.
So this vote, at best, is repetitive because already this body has
rejected the President's last budget. Were the Republicans to bring
forward the President's budget for 2017, they would likely--again, as
has traditionally occurred, as far as I know, throughout history--
overwhelmingly reject that budget.
So, in part, let me be clear, that is because we believe, I believe
as a Member of Congress, that the budget is a legislative prerogative.
I don't think there has been a Presidential budget that has been
passed. In fact, I and, I think, most, if not all, of my Democratic
colleagues joined in opposing the President's budget because we had our
own congressional Democrats' budget. Not only one, there were two or
three congressional Democratic budgets, and there were several
Republican budgets, but that is a matter of legislative prerogative.
We, of course, want to hear ideas from the chief executive, whoever she
is, but we also want to implement our own budget because it is our
prerogative as the United States Congress with the power of the purse
to do that.
But considering the fact that Big Oil and Gas get huge tax subsidies
every year, I personally believe that this kind of modest oil fee is a
reasonable way to look at and have in the mix when talking about how to
fund infrastructure.
If there are other ideas--people have talked about vehicle miles
driven, people have talked about a number of different ways. There is
no Republican or Democratic road. We all drive on roads. We all need
roads. We all need bridges. I know the Republicans in good faith, along
with Democrats, know we need to fund our national infrastructure. And
if you don't like a particular way of doing that, by all means, put
other ideas on the table. But it isn't productive, and it doesn't move
anything forward just to take one item from a President's budget that
you didn't even allow to have a vote and that very few people support
and say: We don't like that.
I think we knew that before you had the vote. I think we knew you
didn't like the President's budget overall. You are welcome to have the
vote. It isn't going anywhere. It won't pass the Senate. It isn't a
matter for actual consideration.
Next, we have the sense of Congress on the carbon tax cut. Again, I
couldn't be more excited. I have been feeling from my friends on the
right that there has been more interest in this concept of a carbon tax
cut. I really see that coming to fruition that it is actually serious
enough and mainstream enough that those who don't like the concept are
putting up some kind of proactive defense. So I really think it is a
matter of time. I think it is going to be great for our economy that we
can cut taxes for American businesses, for job creators, and for middle
income. We can make sure it is progressive and doesn't additionally
burden many of those in poverty. It can be a net benefit to incomes of
individuals below the poverty line. I couldn't be more excited about
this concept of a carbon tax cut.
Frankly, it is the first discussion on the floor of that concept, I
believe, since Republicans have taken control of this body, and I think
it is a harbinger of many things to come on something that can be great
and, frankly, supported from across the ideological spectrum to make
our country more competitive.
Finally, I want to move to what is being called the Ozone Standards
Implementation. Now, this also feels like we have been here before and
done that before. It feels a little bit like deja vu because this bill
essentially repackages a bunch of bills attacking Ozone Standards and
the Clean Air Act that we have seen here and voted on over the last
several years.
Again, this bill won't pass the Senate. It certainly wouldn't be
signed by the President. It is not clear why we are doing it. It seems
to be filling our time, but I would hope that we have more important
issues to work on on behalf of the American people. Like, for instance,
the public health threat of the Zika virus is one.
How about bringing up a bipartisan constitutional amendment that will
help us move towards a balanced budget? How about improving our
entitlement programs to make sure they are there for the next
generation of Americans? How about passing comprehensive immigration
reform to restore the order of law and allow 10 million people to come
out of the shadows and work legally and abide by their responsibilities
under American law that we can enforce going forward?
I am glad that one of my amendments to the ozone bill was made in
order. My colleague from Georgia mentioned that. He said he may not
personally be supportive of it. I will certainly be making the case for
my fourth time and hoping to gain his support, because what my
amendment does is it would close an oil and gas industry loophole to
the Clean Air Act's aggregation requirement, which I will be talking
more about today.
Currently, under current law, the oil and gas industry doesn't have
to aggregate its small air pollution sources, even though cumulatively
they release large amounts of air pollutants. Again, what that means in
a district like mine where there are many fracking pads, there is, of
course, an emission profile to each of these, but because they are
small sites, they are not aggregated. We happen to have a county, Weld
County, Colorado, with over 20,000 operating wells. When you get up to
that kind of number, you can no longer round down to zero. In the
aggregate, those wells look a lot more like a number of large,
industrial plants that otherwise would fall under the Clean Air Act
than simply small sites that can be rounded down to zero.
I couldn't be more excited to have the opportunity to finally bring
up my amendment and hopefully adopt it so we can improve the Clean Air
Act instead of many of the other provisions of the bill which would
eviscerate the Clean Air Act.
This is a serious issue. Between 1980 and 2014, emissions of six air
pollutants controlled by the Clean Air Act have dropped by 63 percent.
That is good news. We should be doing more, not less, to encourage
clean air with the long-term savings of the health of the American
people as well as a reduction of costly diseases like asthma.
A recent peer-reviewed study estimates that the Clean Air Act will
save more than 230,000 lives and will prevent millions of cases of
respiratory problems. But instead of strengthening that act, the
provisions of the bill will delay the implementation of the updated
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards by States, a position
that is opposed by a broad coalition of scientists and many other
groups that care about public health.
The connection between air quality and asthma, of which our country
has 25 million sufferers, is well established. Clean air is integral to
quality of life, and the last thing we should do is tear down the
protections that allow kids to play outside, and that allow adults to
recreate outside and enjoy themselves while continuing to breathe clean
air.
Again, I am not worried about this bill becoming law. It won't pass
the Senate, and, obviously, since it undoes some of President Obama's
actions somehow were it to reach his desk, I am confident that it would
be vetoed.
The problems go on and on with this bill. I do hope that my amendment
passes. It is the first opportunity that I have had to bring forward my
BREATHE Act, which has over 50 cosponsors to actually bring it forward
[[Page H3514]]
for a vote and a discussion. We haven't been able to get that floor
time until now.
So, all in all, I think this is an encouraging week. On the one hand,
we finally get to discuss a carbon tax cut--how exciting--and also, we
finally realize that people are actually worried enough about this
happening that they are running some kind of proactive strategy to try
to lock people down. Wow. This is happening. We are going to have a
carbon tax cut sometime in the next few years. This is great.
Second, I finally get the BREATHE Act, for it is an amendment to
close a loophole for oil and gas in the Clean Air Act. Again, I don't
expect that to pass. I hope to have good support, and, of course, I
call upon my friends to reject the underlying bills.
Instead of continuing the climate-denying work of the majority that
these three bills kind of double down on, we should be focusing on
creating jobs, tax reform, which, again, a carbon tax cut would allow
us a foray into cutting taxes for corporations, cutting taxes for
individuals. And yet again, instead of focusing on the needs of middle
class Americans, instead of focusing on shrinking the deficit, instead
of focusing on reducing subsidies for oil and gas companies, we are
furthering our reliance on legacy, dirty energy systems to power what
we hope is an economy of the future. It is the wrong way to go.
I encourage Members to look in the mirror, think about the health of
themselves, of their children, of their parents, the elderly, and those
most at risk and ask about how those bills would impact them. The
answer is obvious, and I think that, hopefully, the answer that this
body gives to these bills will also be obvious.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that fully funds the
administration's effort to mount a robust and long-term response to the
growing Zika crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so we can focus this body on Zika and the
public health risk to the American people, to vote ``no'' on the rule,
to vote ``no'' on the underlying bills, but, frankly, to move forward
with the door having been opened for this discussion and this coalition
between left and right on a carbon tax cut proposal. Let's take
advantage of that door being opened a crack, and let this be the start
of something really great and the start of something really special
that can help launch the next decade and more of stronger, pro-growth
economic policies letting American families keep more of their hard-
earned income and encouraging American companies to stay put rather
than move overseas.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when you turn on the television, when you open up a
newspaper here in the election season, it seems like folks are pretty
angry. I enjoy coming down to the floor on rules to work with my friend
from Colorado because I genuinely enjoy him. If we are going to get
anything done across the aisle, I have no doubt that he is going to be
a part of that solution. As you listen to his words down here today,
you heard that. Time and time again, there are things we can do
together, there are ways we can be better together. Let's find some
commonsense alternatives.
Sadly, in an election year like this, oftentimes that is as far as
the conversation goes. If you can't fit it on a bumper sticker, you
don't have that conversation. You heard the gentleman say--for example,
with respect to my own tax bill, H.R. 25, the FairTax, the most widely
cosponsored fundamental tax reform bill in the entire United States
Congress, he had favorable things to say. But if you look at any
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee-run advertisement, they
skewer the men and women who take a chance on growing the economy with
the FairTax. They skewer the men and women who take a chance on
repealing the taxes, the most burdensome tax on the 80 percent of
American working families who have to pay it. In the name of politics,
folks don't get past the bumper sticker to the real substance.
I listen to my friend from Colorado. He gives me hope. He gives me
hope that we are going to be able to get over that line, Mr. Speaker.
But the truth is, we have to get past the bumper sticker slogan. My
friend from Colorado is going to be part of whatever fundamental tax
reform change is made here. But we ought to be able to agree that just
adding more taxes to an already broken system--as the President
proposes--can't possibly be the right answer.
My friend is absolutely right that we need to fund American
infrastructure, and I would argue the user-fee system is the way to do
it. Not repatriation, which takes completely unconnected dollars, but
user fees which say that, if you are on the roads, you should pay for
the roads. But that is a discussion we will have to have.
{time} 1330
This is the right place to have that discussion. We will have that
discussion, and I hope that we will come to a conclusion.
My friend says that job creation is job one, but supports complete
re-regulation of industries which is destroying jobs across this
country. I will give you an example, Mr. Speaker, and it is what is so
frustrating to folks back home.
Again, Prime Minister Modi stood where you are standing. He spoke for
1.3 billion people. I only speak for about 700,000. But those 700,000
open up the newspaper when they get into their office on a Monday
morning, trying to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, the ozone standards.
Those standards, released in 2008, finally got around to having the
regulations for how to comply with them finalized in March of 2015. I
will say that again. This crisis of human health that my friend has
described, we identified in 2008, and the administration got around to
telling folks what the rules were by March of 2015.
So all the job creators across the country began to scramble to
comply with those rules, Mr. Speaker. And then in October of 2015, the
administration says: Oh, no, wait. We have a much better idea. Now
let's do ozone compliance, part two.
In 2008, we decided we had an issue we wanted to address. In March of
2015, the administration finally got around to addressing it. As soon
as folks began to spend the money and the intellectual effort to comply
with those rules, by October of that same year, the administration
says: Oh, no. We have got a better idea. Scrap that.
When my friend reads from all of the conservative economists, the
libertarian economists, the folks who care about making sure our
limited resources do the most good for the American people and those
folks support a carbon tax, they don't support a carbon tax in addition
to the nonsensical regulatory structure that I have just described.
They support a carbon tax instead of that structure.
If we monetize harms in this country, we don't have to have a
bureaucracy that guesses at what the issues are; we don't have to have
a bureaucracy that moves not in a day or a week or a month, but takes
years, almost decades, to move in the marketplace. We move quickly, and
we maximize. For every dollar that compliance costs, for every dollar
that environmental stewardship costs, for every dollar that NG
exploration costs, we get the maximum return for every American family.
I think there is a pathway there. I think there is a pathway there.
But understand, more of the same won't get us there. The power to tax
is the power to destroy. Stop destroying job creation. The power to tax
is the power to destroy. Stop destroying American corporations and
moving them overseas.
Golly, we have got opportunity to come together. I believe these
three provisions before us, Mr. Speaker, are going to move us in that
direction.
Make no mistake; our ozone bill that we have before us today makes
every amendment from this body in order--
[[Page H3515]]
save one that was virtually exactly the same as another, and we didn't
want to be duplicative here of the Members' time--made every discussion
in order, including the one from the gentleman from Colorado.
The sense of Congress today says we don't need to tax fossil fuels as
an answer to anything, that taxes are just taxes; and in the absence of
a coherent environmental policy, in the absence of a coherent
stewardship policy, in the absence of men and women on the ground who
are balancing the needs of jobs and the needs of community, it is just
a bumper sticker slogan.
Let's reject bumper sticker slogans today. Let's take advantage of
the serious men and women that serve in this institution, like the
gentleman from Colorado. Let's get together and do the heavy lifting.
Mr. Speaker, if it were easy, they would have done it already. The
reason you are here, the reason my friend from Colorado is here, and
the reason I am here is not to do the easy things; it is to do the hard
things.
What I have come to know in my 5\1/2\ years in this institution is I
have not met a man or a woman who is serious about making a difference
for the country who wouldn't take their voting card and turn it in
tomorrow if they could make that kind of lasting difference that would
serve not just this generation, but generations to come. We have that
opportunity, Mr. Speaker. It is an election year, but let's not
squander it. We can make these next 8 months count for the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the rule. I urge support for
the underlying resolutions as well, but I urge strong support for the
rule that will begin this discussion.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 767 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016
to respond to Zika virus. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations and the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Budget. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5044.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3826; and agreeing to the
Speaker's approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 163, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 273]
YEAS--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurd (TX)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
[[Page H3516]]
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--163
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Eshoo
Esty
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--40
Black
Cardenas
Cummings
Deutch
Duffy
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hardy
Herrera Beutler
Huffman
Hunter
Hurt (VA)
Jeffries
Lee
Lieu, Ted
McCarthy
Miller (FL)
Nadler
Pallone
Payne
Pompeo
Rooney (FL)
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott, David
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Takai
Walters, Mimi
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
{time} 1357
Mr. COOPER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RIGELL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 273, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall
vote No. 273 on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 767,
Providing for consideration of H.R. 4775, the Ozone Standards
Implementation Act of 2016; providing for consideration of H. Con. Res.
89, expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be
detrimental to the United States economy; and providing for
consideration of H. Con. Res. 112. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 163, not voting 35, as follows:
[Roll No. 274]
AYES--235
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--163
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--35
Black
Cardenas
Conyers
Cummings
Duffy
Ellison
Ellmers (NC)
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hardy
Herrera Beutler
Huffman
Hunter
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Lee
Lieu, Ted
Luetkemeyer
McCarthy
Nadler
Payne
Pittenger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sires
Takai
Walters, Mimi
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
[[Page H3517]]
{time} 1403
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 274.
____________________